Alford v. State
2014 Ark. 43
Ark.2014Background
- In 1985 Richard Alford was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed the conviction.
- Alford previously sought leave in this Court to file a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition in 1987; that request was denied.
- He filed a second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction so he could pursue Rule 37.1 relief and moved for appointment of counsel.
- Rule 37 (pre–July 1, 1989) required leave of this Court before filing a postconviction petition in the trial court; Rule 37.2 imposed a three-year timeliness bar unless the conviction is shown to be a complete nullity.
- The petition asserted ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, and improper jury instructions; the Court found these claims either conclusory, trial error, or insufficient to void the judgment.
- Because this was a second Rule 37.1 petition (the first having been denied without leave to file another), the Court treated the filing as unauthorized and dismissed it; the motion for counsel was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims render the conviction absolutely void | Alford contends counsel was ineffective, warranting Rule 37 relief | State argues ineffective-assistance does not, by itself, render a judgment a nullity | Denied — ineffective-assistance claims insufficient to void judgment |
| Whether conclusory due-process claim is a basis for Rule 37 relief | Alford alleges denial of due process | State argues allegation is conclusory and lacks factual support | Denied — conclusory due-process claim fails |
| Whether asserted jury-instruction/trial errors qualify for relief under Rule 37.2 | Alford asserts improper instructions/trial error | State says these are trial errors that could have been raised on appeal or at trial and do not void the judgment | Denied — trial error does not render judgment a nullity |
| Whether a second Rule 37.1 petition is permitted after an earlier denial | Alford asks Court to allow a second petition, claiming original petition was incomplete/unauthorized by him | State relies on Rule 37.2(b) and prior denial; petitioner required to raise all issues in original petition unless denied without prejudice | Denied — second petition unauthorized and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alford v. State, 291 Ark. 243, 724 S.W.2d 151 (Ark. 1987) (direct-appeal affirmance of conviction)
- Travis v. State, 286 Ark. 26, 688 S.W.2d 935 (Ark. 1985) (burden to show conviction is a nullity for untimeliness exception)
- Collins v. State, 271 Ark. 825, 611 S.W.2d 182 (Ark. 1981) (Rule 37 timeliness principles)
- Ruiz v. State, 280 Ark. 190, 655 S.W.2d 441 (Ark. 1983) (all issues must be raised in original Rule 37 petition unless denied without prejudice)
- Martin v. State, 277 Ark. 175, 639 S.W.2d 738 (Ark. 1982) (ineffective-assistance claim does not alone void judgment)
- Taylor v. State, 297 Ark. 627, 764 S.W.2d 447 (Ark. 1989) (trial error that was or could have been raised on appeal does not warrant Rule 37 relief)